Re: Patch: getters/setters syntax Implementation

On Dec 6, 2011, at 8:58 AM, Rasmus Schultz wrote: > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Christian Kaps <christian.kaps@mohiva.com>wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I also find this syntax confusing and I think it has a huge WTF factor. >> >> Some thoughts about the syntax: >> - At the first glance, it isn't clear which visibility the getter or >> setter has >> - The extra indentation level makes the code more unreadable >> >> class Foo { >> >> /** >> * >> */ >> private $_bar; >> >> /** >> * >> */ >> public $bar{ >> >> /** >> * >> */ >> set { >> if ($bar) { >> $this->_bar = $bar * 12; >> } else { >> $this->_bar = 0 >> } >> } >> >> /** >> * >> */ >> private set { >> if ($this->_bar === null) { >> return 0; >> } >> >> return $this->_bar; >> } >> } >> >> /** >> * >> */ >> public function baz() { >> >> } >> } >> >> - What about type hints? >> >> I prefer a more AS3 like getter and setter syntax. >> >> http://help.adobe.com/en_US/**ActionScript/3.0_**ProgrammingAS3/** >> WS5b3ccc516d4fbf351e63e3d118a9**b90204-7f30.html#** >> >> WS5b3ccc516d4fbf351e63e3d118a9**b90204-7fcb<http://help.adobe.com/en_US/ActionScript/3.0_ProgrammingAS3/WS5b3ccc516d4fbf351e63e3d118a9b90204-7f30.html#WS5b3ccc516d4fbf351e63e3d118a9b90204-7fcb> >> >> Have you read my previous mail >> http://news.php.net/php.**internals/56762<http://news.php.net/php.internals/56762> >> . >> I think this syntax fits more to PHP because its similar to the already >> existing(magic) getter and setter syntax. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Christian >> > > I agree with all of those points - the extra indentation looks messy, and > yes, type hints are important. It does fit better with PHP in general. > > It would be nice to also have support for automatic backing fields in > addition though - so something simple like this: > > class BlogPost > { > private $_author; > > public get author() > { > return $this->_author; > } > > public set author(Person $value) > { > $this->_author = $value; > } > } I don't like this approach. All efforts (which I'm currently part of) to implement type hinting return values will be compromised. If you want to implement accessors, keep them within a syntax that makes sense. Personally, I support the C# style as much as possible. Methods are already overused for purposes they shouldn't be, so if we're attempting to get around __set/get, let's not replace them with more method implementations. > > Could be written like this: > > class BlogPost > { > public Person $author; > } > > Effectively, this shorthand syntax just gives you type-safe properties - > but it refactors nicely, since you can replace it with a full > implementation of a backing field at any point. > > (on second thought, I don't like the idea I suggested before - adding a > magical $value in accessors, similar to $this - it's confusing and it's > going to look like an undeclared local variable...)